The Instigator
LogicalLunatic
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Ajab
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

World Goverment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 56774
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

LogicalLunatic

Con

First round is for exceptance burden of proof is shared I look foward to a great debate.
Ajab

Pro

I accept this debate, which I should note was sent to me as a challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalLunatic

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge. This topic, the idea of a World Government, is one that I am very strongly against, in this debate and even more so in real life. I do not know what my opponent's actual stance is on a World Government, but if he is for it, then I hope that by the end of this debate I will have convinced him that it is an idea that is a kind of horrible of epic proportions.
Anyhow, I wish my opponent good luck. And now I will begin.

I wish that I could have some variety to my arguments, but the truth is that just about all of my arguments can be traced back to one grand argument: the tyranny of a World Government and the total loss of freedom for all of its citizens.

Okay, let's take the United States of America. Even if you're a rabid America-hating extremist, a fact that most people can agree on is that the United States is one of the greatest nations in the history of mankind, if not THE greatest nation in the history of mankind.
It runs on a Republic System, where every citizen above the age of 18 who hasn't been arrested or isn't on the run from the law has the right to vote for a candidate, run for office, or even establish your own political party if no existing party matches your beliefs. In America, everyone has equal rights in the eyes of the law, regardless of their race, sex, religion/irreligion political ideology, or cultural heritage. Every adult citizen has the right to own property. Most adult citizens have the right to bear arms. The American system has clearly worked, as Americans have gone without a revolution for 200 years, not considering the formation of the Confederate States of America to be a revolution. Also, America has had one Constitution over the course of 200 years, while even many of the prosperous nations of Western Europe have had more than one Constitution over the past few centuries. France is currently on its Fifth Republic, according to Wikipedia.
Where in many other nations children are starving to death, in America we have cars, Air conditioning, surplus food, homes, video games, TVs in almost every household, and internet in most households.
I think even my opponent, who I doubt is American, believes that the United States is a nation of great freedom, where the people's rights are respected. I meant no disrespect to my opponent, by the way.

But, even America, the greatest nation in the world is beginning to slip into a totalitarian state.
Here's my proof:
1. American citizens are more monitored than East Germany was under communism.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
http://globalresearch.ca...
In fact, according to the first source, the U.S. Government collects 100 billion thousand-character emails EVERY DAY. They collect 20 trillion communications of all types every year.
Also, there is a huge spy network composed of surveillance cameras watching everything that Americans do. There's even the possibility that the cameras are using facial recognition software to identify every person who walks by the countless surveillance cameras in the United States.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.theblaze.com...
Now, since I have proven that the Government is spying on the everyday lives of its citizens, next I will prove that the U.S. Government is growing tyrannical.
Did you know that according to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, the military may indefinitely detain American citizens if they are merely SUSPECTED of being terrorists?
http://abcnews.go.com...
Obviously, the Government is yet to start abducting Americans off the streets in droves. However, they have the power to do so.
Now, you may be asking yourself, "Won't the U.S. Government only do this to suspected terrorists?"
Sure, but they'll be sure to adopt a very, very broad definition of what a terrorist is. Allow me to explain further.
In 2013, the Department of Defense classified evangelical Christians as terrorists, along with groups like Al-Qaeda.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://radio.foxnews.com...
So apparently my former pastor, who is a nice man in his late sixties, must be a terrorist according to the Department of Defense! I must be a terrorist according to them! Who new?
Now, as far as I heard, they apologized for this statement. However, it shows that people within the Government are willing to label Christians as terrorists, and deal with them accordingly.
Bottom line: the Government has the authority to arrest anybody who they consider to be terrorists, and it could only be a matter of time before they turn on Christians, who they apparently consider to be terrorists.
If this happens, you cannot fight the Government via guerilla warfare or hide in the woods to escape them; they can see everything that happens in the United States. Your only remaining options are to either let the Government hold you in their slightly more humane concentration camps...or flee the country.

Now, my entire argument so far revolved around the United States of America. But why is that? Am I not supposed to be debating the idea of a World Government?
Well actually, everything that I have said about the United States would apply to a Global Government. Here's why:

As I have shown with the United States, even the most free nation will, with time, grow to be authoritarian. A Global Government is no different in this respect. Even if it takes 1000 years (an and it only took the United States about 200 years), this Government will grow authoritarian. It will, utilizing the resources of the whole world, develop the ability to monitor everything that happens in the world. They will monitor everything that every person does. And, it will arrest any one of its citizens who it merely suspects of terrorism (or some other crime). And of course, it will eventually set the bar very low on what makes a terrorist.
When this happens, it will become virtually impossible to resist or hide from this Government. AND, as it will be a Global Government, there will be no place on planet Earth where you can go to flee from it.

THIS is why a World Government is one of the worst ideas ever thought up, or at least in my strong opinion.
Doubtless, my opponent will probably start talking about the benefits of a World Government. I would address future arguments, but I probably don't have enough characters to do so.
So, I will now step back and allow my opponent to make his rebuttals.
Ajab

Pro

I am going to ask if we can skip one round please.
In simple words this one round will be removed from the debate, and I will speak next adressing the contents of Logical's original arguments, as well as my arguments.
I thank Logical in advance for this,

Ajab
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalLunatic

Con

LogicalLunatic forfeited this round.
Ajab

Pro

I am going to begin with my positive case, and then address LogicalLunatic's contentions. I should inform the voters that there is a shared BoP.

Model:
This is what I present as the model. There be a Confederation formed from all the states of the world.

P1: World Peace
If a world government is formed, while there may be collision there would no longer be any inter-country wars. As the government will have representatives from all over the world, all international war would stop. Let us take the issue of Pakistan and India, if they had one administration then the electricity provided by the rivers would not be fought for, because the entire confederation would receive electricity.

P2: Just One Step Further
If you look at it the United Nations is all ready a form of Confederation, the only change you would bring is that everyone would be equal, and that every state would be a part of it. The United Nations would form a sort of supreme government over the smaller, now pseudo-governments.
Another example of a confederation is a European Union.

I would honestly continue further but I read some of Logical's contentions and I swear to God that did change my beliefs. I thought there would be a way around it but just in writing my argument I realized that the threat of neo-imperialism will remain and where I thought war would end the countries which are currently stronger would take the most power in the world government and less powerful countries would be ignored. I can imagine the USA, China and UK making a government and leaving out lets say Russia which could cause wars of great proportion.
I think this is the first time DDO has changed my opinion on something. I humbly concede the debate to Logical.
I should NEVER debate political issues, I am better at philosophical ones.

Ajab
Debate Round No. 3
LogicalLunatic

Con

My opponent says that he concedes the debate to me. I don't know whether that means he gives up or if he's simply stating that his opponent (I) will probably win, but frankly,I would be disappointed if this debate ended so soon. Either way, I thank my opponent both for his concession and for willing to see my point of view with an open mind.
However, I think my opponent may have misunderstood what I was and am trying to say.
My arguments weren't about war. A United world may, within future generations where the conditions of world politics is considerably different than it is now, form peacefully. What this IS about is freedom. Under a highly sophisticated Global Government, freedom cannot and will not be maintained indefinitely. If the Global Government is technologically primitive (without EMPs this is highly unlikely), then surely it could not maintain its hold over our vast world.

To properly win this debate, I should at least provide an answer to my opponent's contentions, regardless of whether or not he will respond to this.

1. World Peace
Yes, there may be world peace. However, in order to achieve this, countless potential insurgency and terrorist groups from different religions, races, political ideologies, segments of the globe, and time periods must be suppressed. To do this would require a Government with vast surveillance capabilities. Effectively, a Government that knows everything. To quote/paraphrase a certain source which I will not identify, "a Government which knows everything can control everything." In other words, this Government would remove all freedom.

2. Just Another Step?
Going from a Confederation to a Federation is actually a huge step. For instance, while states under a Confederation may have some rights and responsibilities, they are not allowed to do anything which supersedes the authority of the Central/Federal Government. For instance, if a World Government like this were to have formed prior to 2001, the U.S. would've needed permission from the UN to take military action against the Taliban. In fact, the U.S. wouldn't have its own army, so it'd have to ask the UN to take military action against the Taliban.
Can you imagine all the world's other nations having the authority to decide whether your nation is defended or not? What if the majority of nations dislike your nation, as most nations hate the U.S.? I mean, if the U.S. relied completely upon other nations to defend us, we'd be an Islamic theocracy (I do not mean to offend my opponent) or a Nazi occupied territory.

With my contentions having been stated and my opponent having conceded to me, I close my statements for this Round, and quite possibly the debate.
Ajab

Pro

I have, as I said, conceded.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicalLunatic

Con

Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
why the concession? play devil's advocate?
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Dont worry I have not forgotten. :P
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I am posting this comment to remind my opponent that the deadline for posting his argument is approaching.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Thank you so much Logical <3
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Agreed. I will forfeit this round so that you have some extra time.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
okay
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Ill accept this in a couple of days
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Not so fast, I will need some time. I have a lot of debates right now. I thought it would take you at the very least two weeks :P
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LogicalLunaticAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Lerch 2 years ago
Lerch
LogicalLunaticAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con certainly has provided a convincing argument. Pro's humility and open-mindedness is very admirable. Great discussion!
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
LogicalLunaticAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Pro...
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LogicalLunaticAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CONcession.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LogicalLunaticAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession